Some questions regarding Global Warming and related topics

[godslanguage]

Do you believe Kyoto is the right approach to solving global warming effects?

Do you believe that Global Warming is human induced or a naturally induced?

Do you believe there is a hidden agenda by environmental activists working with the liberal government/media to propose kyoto in the first place?

What agenda do you think they might have in mind?
Do you believe that everyone knows about this agenda?

Do you believe the media scares people about things that are not even true? (Anything related to this topic)

Do you believe that, our planet is overcrowded?

If you think so, do you believe that there should be a solution for the future sake of our planets resources?

Do you think abortion rights, gay rights, elimation of DDT, nuclear energy insecurity and AIDs scare in the media have anything to do with this agenda?

You don't have to answer all the questions, just perhaps state a paragraph or two in a non-orderly fashion, or oderly if you like, whatever.

Thanks for any replies, I have my own takes on these questions. I will provide some links after some replies.

[bluesman]

Global Warming is very real , there is no hidden agenda.
However, maybe I am just one of those liberal environmentalists.
Not! I work for a company that contributes to global warming gases.
This company also supports the reduction of these gases.

Now as far as cause by Nature or cause by Man? The answer is both.
You need to realize there is nature carbon cycles and that the earth natural goes through cycles of warming and cooling.
Man accelerates or modifies those changes.

Somehow I think you will come up with websites that say that Global Warming
is all a hoax by a groups with a hidden agenda.

Michael

[Canuckster1127]

You may find this article on the main board of interest.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rming.html

[Canuckster1127]

Here's an interesing new story somewhat in this category as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 83,00.html

[godslanguage]

"there is no hidden agenda. "

How do you know there is no hidden agenda. I believe there is such thing as Global Warming, but the kyoto protocol is not the right way to solve it.

Read this article:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/ ... cience.htm

Scientists do not agree either: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Wow!

Nothing is as simple as this editorial/article seems to protray things.

People against the use of nuclear power and DDT are not out to kill millions of people.
Etc,etc...

As for the petition this was from 5 years ago, altho there is still not a general consensus as to what is causing global warming, it is not an outright ploy for control of the world as the first article seems to be stating. We simply do not have enough data yet.

There are more complex reasons behind why the United States has yet to agree to the Kyoto Protocol. Of course this is just my opinion, but it's hard to follow the reasoning of Arthur and Jane.

[godslanguage]

"People against the use of nuclear power and DDT are not out to kill millions of people. "

I disagree, DDT is the most effective cure for malaria. During the 50's, DDT was sprayed to get rid of Malaria, the worst disease on the planet, even today. DDT was had practically no harmful side effects on humans and on the environment itself, through scientific studies. Yet, the environmental activists working with left wing tilted scientists proclaimed the opposite results, that DDT was very harmful to the environment. Million upon millions of lives were saved in 3rd world countries during that time. The activists protested that DDT was become less effective due to mosquito resistance to it, but studies again show that that is not the case. It is very low costly and is NOT in use today, it is BANNED. I am not sure of exaclty what the death toll was since that time, but from what I can remember, Malaria has killed approximetely 30 times more than AIDS has.

So people who are against DDT are in fact killing millions of people. Don't matter what reasons they oppose it.


Nuclear energy is in fact a clean energy source. I'm not going to go into this one, because it is obvious. Energy is the basic for economical prosperity, ofcourse other factors are involved, but it is a basic and fundamental one. When you have Kyoto protocol, your too busy trying to fix your own problems, because Global warming is supposebly a very huge problem. How will we help other countries when we are too busy helping ourselves, fixing these "mistakes", and thus neutralizing the world population. In 2009, you will be paying an increase of up to 6000 dollars of taxes to support kyoto. There are currently other strategies where the government (conservatitve) is putting in place as a secondary approach to kyoto. In Canada, this is currently being implemented.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

People dying as a result and proactively trying to kill millions of people do not equate.

DDT has been shown to accumulate in the environment, what you are saying is that it is worth risking possible deleterious effects in order to continue the eradication malaria carying vectors despite diminishing returns in some cases? If it is so clear cut then why the debate? The fact is it is not so clear cut, a little more research into the subject perhaps?

If you really cared you wouldn't think this as a possible option?
Would you want your own children to be subject to water from lead pipes? Hey, it brings water into the home and it's cheap! Who knows how many people died of water bourne illnesses from contaminated water sources.

As for nuclear power take a walk through Chernobyl if you think that it is a completely clean power source.

Nuclear energy is in fact a clean energy source. I'm not going to go into this one, because it is obvious

Nothing is as black and white a you seem to be putting it. No doubt countries like France have succesfully integrated nuclear power into their power infrastructure, but lets not pretend that nuclear power is completely safe and manageable.

As for the Kyoto agreement are you woried about the money in your pocket and your prosperity, or about the welfare of other nations?

When you have Kyoto protocol, your too busy trying to fix your own problems, because Global warming is supposebly a very huge problem. How will we help other countries when we are too busy helping ourselves, fixing these "mistakes", and thus neutralizing the world population.

Who brain-washed you?
=)
Really, it seems like all your sources are biased. Sometimes the news will report things counter to your beleifs, thats reality, not liberal bias.

So your saying that if the United States agrees to the Kyoto agreement that we would be incapable of helping other nations?
What are these alternative "fixes"?

In the real world there is never an easy solution to the bigger problems.

For you it's simple, spray a few areas with DDT thus reducing the malaria carrying mosquito population. Hey it's cheap and you can sleep better. No thought as to what consequences this may cause. Hey, lets build the nuclear powerplant in your backyard, litterally.

You want to save lives but not worry about standards of living. Unless of course it effects your standard of living like the Kyoto agreement. Well?

[godslanguage]

"People dying as a result and proactively trying to kill millions of people do not equate.

DDT has been shown to accumulate in the environment, what you are saying is that it is worth risking possible deleterious effects in order to continue the eradication malaria carying vectors despite diminishing returns in some cases? If it is so clear cut then why the debate? The fact is it is not so clear cut, a little more research into the subject perhaps?

As for nuclear power take a walk through Chernobyl if you think that it is a completely clean power source."

Chernobyl is a completely differant thing. As you well know, Chernobyl was caused by very poor economical standard at first, not well maintained nuclear facilities and obviously, technology has changed and they did'nt have the technology back then as they do now. Improvement in technology has made nuclear energy facilities very safe, if properly maintained by the right people, there should'nt be any problem. Ofcourse the media would like you to think of nuclear and atomic as devastating, the nuclear bomb is and chernobyl is no exception, but as far as I know and read, it is very very safe.
This is why implementating nuclear facilities is going nowhere these days, especially in third world countries.

"Nothing is as black and white a you seem to be putting it. No doubt countries like France have succesfully integrated nuclear power into their power infrastructure, but lets not pretend that nuclear power is completely safe and manageable."

Like I said, with the proper infrastructure and the right people, above all, the finances to support this would lead to successful development and integration of nuclear power in any country.

"As for the Kyoto agreement are you woried about the money in your pocket and your prosperity, or about the welfare of other nations?"

No, I am not worried about the money at all. I am worried about the one sided claims and facts the public is getting from this. Do you agree with Kyoto, kyoto is as twisted in my opinion as evolution is. It is just another political game as well for media to make money on and for politicians to ramble on about. Why isn't kyoto being implemented then in the states, because the facts are not straight about it, if they were, and we are in fact seeing and experiencing global warming in front of our noses, why does the conservative government here in Canada and US don't want anything to do with it? Tell David Suzuki to go takes his facts and bury them. Have you read suzukisl letter for donations to his insane environmental campaign?

"Who brain-washed you?"

Well, I think the same people who brainwashed me about evolution. I took this in school as a course. I read many books also, such as Liberal Bias by Bernard Goldberg working as a CBS insider and exposes the liberal media --- in the media for what it actually is. There are all kinds of BIAS you are hearing in the media. Bias by commision, by ommision etc... The question comes down to, who is giving you the right story. Is there such thing as a right story. If I am brainwashed, than I don't know, you might be brainwashed as well?

"So your saying that if the United States agrees to the Kyoto agreement that we would be incapable of helping other nations?
What are these alternative "fixes"?"

I'm saying that you got a flat tire and you have to deal with that flat tire before you can start driving again. This is how the economy works, when the government enforces things upon it. What the environmentalists are doing, is putting a hault, perhaps a flat tire isn't such as big issue, but as long as it keeps you from driving for 10 minutes than it is enough of a strategy then no strategy.

"In the real world there is never an easy solution to the bigger problems.

For you it's simple, spray a few areas with DDT thus reducing the malaria carrying mosquito population. Hey it's cheap and you can sleep better. No thought as to what consequences this may cause. Hey, lets build the nuclear powerplant in your backyard, litterally.

You want to save lives but not worry about standards of living. Unless of course it effects your standard of living like the Kyoto agreement. Well?"

Well, did DDT worked back in the 50's? Did standard of living change when DDT was used? Did Malaria reappear again when DDT was banned. Is Malaria a good standard of living, I don't want Malaria, do you? If its cheap and efficient, it works, than why ban it? Do you hear of any cases here of Malaria anywhere here in North America. Do you even hear any cases of Malaria on the news. I hear more about HIV and AIDS, have you heard of AZT which is basically a prescription for AIDS?

Lets help these countries build and establish an economy, thats what I'm saying. Start by investing more in those countries, basic things like energy, not just condoms. Media makes such a big fuss about how America is investing, I'm not seeing any results, are you? Is it safe to say these results we are hearing by the liberal media are results not worth air time?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"As for nuclear power take a walk through Chernobyl if you think that it is a completely clean power source."

Chernobyl is a completely differant thing. As you well know, Chernobyl was caused by very poor economical standard at first, not well maintained nuclear facilities and obviously, technology has changed and they did'nt have the technology back then as they do now. Improvement in technology has made nuclear energy facilities very safe, if properly maintained by the right people, there should'nt be any problem. Ofcourse the media would like you to think of nuclear and atomic as devastating, the nuclear bomb is and chernobyl is no exception, but as far as I know and read, it is very very safe.

I suspect I follow the same media as you do and far as I can tell this is not what they present. However it is true in many cases the news reporters don't have a firm understanding of the issues as well. It's always good to do a little research on your own and try reading a newpaper, instead of watching TV.

Nuclear power has it's downsides, besides generating radioactive waste, and the difficulties of choosing sites to build plants and waste disposal facilities. This difficulty due to the perception of nuclear power as dangerous by the general public.

Nuclear waste can remain hazardous for billions of years, there is no place to safely dispose of it for such a long time span. In other words it might be dug up thousands of years from now and create an environmental catastrophe. Some people do see the larger picture, even if tens of thousands of years seems like it's too far in the future for you to be concerned.

Another concern is another byproduct of nuclear reactors, plutonium. This is behind the U.S. effort to curb and control nuclear technology in Iran and North Korea.

In the end we know it's proven and shown to be safe, however it is a human invention. Improvements happen when accidents occur. Three mile island lead to new designs and safety measures, such as Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors. But there is no guarantee that nothing will go wrong. We must remain cautious.

This is why implementating nuclear facilities is going nowhere these days, especially in third world countries.

You had mentioned that these facilities required expertise, which third world countries were you interested in building facilities in? Can we be certain that nuclear material will not be removed for the purposes of creating dirty bombs?

"Nothing is as black and white a you seem to be putting it. No doubt countries like France have succesfully integrated nuclear power into their power infrastructure, but lets not pretend that nuclear power is completely safe and manageable."

Like I said, with the proper infrastructure and the right people, above all, the finances to support this would lead to successful development and integration of nuclear power in any country.

In any country?

"As for the Kyoto agreement are you woried about the money in your pocket and your prosperity, or about the welfare of other nations?"

No, I am not worried about the money at all. I am worried about the one sided claims and facts the public is getting from this. Do you agree with Kyoto, kyoto is as twisted in my opinion as evolution is. It is just another political game as well for media to make money on and for politicians to ramble on about.

The Kyoto agreement was created for the media to make money?
The major issue with the agreement is that the proposed cutbacks are too drastic for a nation which realeases comparatively vast amounts of greenhouse gasses. It's an issue of sovereignty and of economy. The United States has enjoyed cheaper oil than the rest of the world and has taken advantage of it. This nation cannot afford to cut back to the levels of other nations without taking an economic hit. It's not about the facts of global warming, it's about the fact that the United States doesn't want to pay other nations for the right's to produce greenhouse gasses as the nation adjusts to the protocol.

If you were told that an asteroid might hit the earth would you wait till they were more certain? Or would you consider doing something about it now? As you can see it depends on the individual, people have different opinions and interests, that doesn't mean there is some hidden agenda or mass conspiracy.

"Who brain-washed you?"

Well, I think the same people who brainwashed me about evolution. I took this in school as a course. I read many books also, such as Liberal Bias by Bernard Goldberg working as a CBS insider and exposes the liberal media --- in the media for what it actually is. There are all kinds of BIAS you are hearing in the media. Bias by commision, by ommision etc... The question comes down to, who is giving you the right story. Is there such thing as a right story. If I am brainwashed, than I don't know, you might be brainwashed as well?

Sometimes it's best to stick to the story, reading these kinds of things is a form of brain washing.

I'm saying that you got a flat tire and you have to deal with that flat tire before you can start driving again.

Sorry the United states does not have only one driver and can do multiple things at once. Why is the National Deficit not a flat tire? What about the war in Iraq? Are you saying that cutting back fuel emmisions will bring the countries foreign policy measures to a screeching halt? I don't think so.

This is how the economy works, when the government enforces things upon it. What the environmentalists are doing, is putting a hault, perhaps a flat tire isn't such as big issue, but as long as it keeps you from driving for 10 minutes than it is enough of a strategy then no strategy.

Are you repeating someone else's opinion, because this doesn't make sence. In every policy making decision one has to weigh out the pro's and cons. The progress of economy is not always the ideal way to go, or is it? Every case is a separate issue, you don't lump people into a group, let's say environmentalists, and then declare them the enemy. You need to listen to all sides. Think about New Orleans, environmentalists have been warning for years that development of wetlands will lessen the buffering capabilities of the coastal areas to tropical storms.

Well, did DDT worked back in the 50's? Did standard of living change when DDT was used? Did Malaria reappear again when DDT was banned.

Malaria never dissapeared only controlled. But the spraying became less and less effective.

Is Malaria a good standard of living,

I am talking about the standard of living for the people in those countries in which the govenrnment cannot support them.

I don't want Malaria, do you? If its cheap and efficient, it works, than why ban it? Do you hear of any cases here of Malaria anywhere here in North America. Do you even hear any cases of Malaria on the news.

lol
Better do some research, there was never a malaria problem in North America.

I hear more about HIV and AIDS, have you heard of AZT which is basically a prescription for AIDS?

Are you just now learning all of these things? I thought you were an electrical engineer? AZT is in fact a toxic drug, however you seem to have been brain washed again. And understanding of the Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome leads to the realization that it is not AIDS which kills you but the oppurtunistic diseases which take advantage of the ravaged immune system AIDS causes. AZT has many severe side effects, but the one effect it does have is slow down AIDS and its destruction of the immune system. Remember no immune system and the simplest thing can kill you. Either way you feel bad but withought AZT, the annual flu spells death.

So let me get this straight, you are for DDT but against AZT?
Both chemicals have pro's and cons. If DDT were never banned and due to its persistence was showing up in large quantities causing difficult pregnancies and spontaneous abortions, would you be listening to someone spouting that DDT is a conspiracy to reduce the population?

If AZT were banned would you be asking that it be used in third world countries because it's cheap and effective?

Think about it.

Lets help these countries build and establish an economy, thats what I'm saying. Start by investing more in those countries, basic things like energy, not just condoms. Media makes such a big fuss about how America is investing, I'm not seeing any results, are you? Is it safe to say these results we are hearing by the liberal media are results not worth air time?

Huh? Have you seen the rest of the world? It's a big place.

[godslanguage]

"I suspect I follow the same media as you do and far as I can tell this is not what they present. However it is true in many cases the news reporters don't have a firm understanding of the issues as well. It's always good to do a little research on your own and try reading a newpaper, instead of watching TV."

The media is something that I don't follow anymore. My percption of the media has changed significantly. You make a good point here without even noticing, TV news takes most of its information from New York times. los Angelos (which make newspapers) etc.... they rely on it and pick information that will cause the greatest stir upon the nation. So I rather not pick up a newpaper either.

"Nuclear power has it's downsides, besides generating radioactive waste, and the difficulties of choosing sites to build plants and waste disposal facilities. This difficulty due to the perception of nuclear power as dangerous by the general public."

Definetely, I agree.

"Nuclear waste can remain hazardous for billions of years, there is no place to safely dispose of it time span. In other words it might be dug up thousands of years from now and create an environmental catastrophe. Some people do see the larger picture, even if tens of thousands of years seems like it's too far in the future for you to be concerned."

Thousands of years, perhaps, some people see the bigger picture and say its the differance between a 10 billion years and 9.99 billion years.

"Another concern is another byproduct of nuclear reactors, plutonium. This is behind the U.S. effort to curb and control nuclear technology in Iran and North Korea."

They have already devloped it or very close to devloping it. Russia has so much nuclear bombs they don't know what to do with it. So they sell it.

"In the end we know it's proven and shown to be safe, however it is a human invention. Improvements happen when accidents occur. Three mile island lead to new designs and safety measures, such as Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactors. But there is no guarantee that nothing will go wrong. We must remain cautious."

Ofcourse, you make a good point here.

"You had mentioned that these facilities required expertise, which third world countries were you interested in building facilities in? Can we be certain that nuclear material will not be removed for the purposes of creating dirty bombs?"

There is currently nuclear material being smuggled around the world, it is being circulated this very moment, so the dirty bombs are out, the question is, when will they use it and in what neat package will they wrap it up in.


"The Kyoto agreement was created for the media to make money?"

Ofcourse, but you misinterpret what I'm saying. It is not that the kyoto agreement is for the media to make money on, it is for them to scare the public about Global warming. They are presenting the facts about what the environmental activists have told them, they like those types of stories, they pick and choose what they like and present it, fact or no fact. This is how the media makes money, the media works to present the most outrageous and most fearful stories they can get they're hands on to increase television ratings, they make money that way, you know, it is a business. But the fact is they are presenting all the facts in a one sided liberal mindset. Just like someone who would present evolution pretending they have all the facts, but they are skewed, same goes for some of the Creationist/ID arguements, but when you start taking bits and pieces of information from both sides, things start making sense, in this case BIAS is not existent. The media, whether you would like to believe in or not, is completely left wing tilted, unless they are forced otherwise and also depending on what stories they present will influence they're decision on how to present it.

"The major issue with the agreement is that the proposed cutbacks are too drastic for a nation which realeases comparatively vast amounts of greenhouse gasses. It's an issue of sovereignty and of economy. The United States has enjoyed cheaper oil than the rest of the world and has taken advantage of it. This nation cannot afford to cut back to the levels of other nations without taking an economic hit. It's not about the facts of global warming, it's about the fact that the United States doesn't want to pay other nations for the right's to produce greenhouse gasses as the nation adjusts to the protocol."

I don't know exactly what you are saying here, perhaps taking information from your liberal media friends is not the best idea. You talk about oil cutback to levels of other nations without taking an economic hit, that is exactly what kyoto protocol will do. America will cutback on its oil and development, industries which rely on oil must adjust to other technologies, this will cause the economy to take an economic hit. So Kyoto is based on the fact of Global Warming, why do they not show the real facts behind it then? Calling it human induced when even scientists admit it is a natural change in climate. Melting Glaciers shown on the news or the movie: The Day after tommorw, one word for you; politics, liberal politics at its best.

"If you were told that an asteroid might hit the earth would you wait till they were more certain? Or would you consider doing something about it now? As you can see it depends on the individual, people have different opinions and interests, that doesn't mean there is some hidden agenda or mass conspiracy."

Remember Y2K in the year 2000. Thats exactly what people did, they purchased lots of supplies, food, flashlights and accessories for storage. They considered doing something just in case something happened. They put the scare in place, and people reacted how people always react when they rely on completely flawed information.This is the brainwashing that goes on because of the media, the media is ofcourse controlled by other forces, perhaps the devil, but most likely the people in power of corporations, the government and activists who probably are the devil themselves if they wish to let people suffer and die in 3rd world countries. You can look at it this way too, perhaps they are doing the right thing and neutralizing the supposed crowded up human population on earth which is not crowded as much as people would like to be. They are killing them off to save natural resources in the long run, I guess that could be a good thing, do you? Are we running out of resources, oil perhaps? Have we dug up most of our oil? Are we running out of oil like the media wants us to think. Is the problem in fact the technology, we can surely drill much deeper then we currently are. As far as I'm concerned, we have'nt yet drilled deep enough to approach nebula.

People have opinions far left for my judgement. It is so obvious that half the articles on the internet, more than half the stories in the news, and half the movies shown on the bigscreen are purely politically charged to send a hidden message to the public.

"Sometimes it's best to stick to the story, reading these kinds of things is a form of brain washing."

Once again, what am I reading wrong and your reading right. I'm not against Global Warming, but I am against the facts presented in the Kyoto protocol about Globabl warming. Your reading something that makes sense to you, and I am simply approaching it a different way, saying there is something wrong here and why do we keep hearing the same claims without getting a differant interpretation on it.


"Sorry the United states does not have only one driver and can do multiple things at once. Why is the National Deficit not a flat tire? What about the war in Iraq? Are you saying that cutting back fuel emmisions will bring the countries foreign policy measures to a screeching halt? I don't think so."

Yes, I think so. The war on Iraq is the war-- in Iraq, it is not the war in the states, except perhaps politically. Not a screeching halt, I did not say that, I said a halt, you can interpret that as screeching if you like, you can think of it as an unnoticeable one, you won't notice it because your too busy

"Are you repeating someone else's opinion, because this doesn't make sence. In every policy making decision one has to weigh out the pro's and cons. "

Yes, when working with the wrong facts (Kyoto), you must weigh out your decision with the wrong facts by applying the pros and cons of decision with the wrong facts in the first place.


" The progress of economy is not always the ideal way to go, or is it? Every case is a separate issue, you don't lump people into a group, let's say environmentalists, and then declare them the enemy. You need to listen to all sides. Think about New Orleans, environmentalists have been warning for years that development of wetlands will lessen the buffering capabilities of the coastal areas to tropical storms."

No, well the environmentalists are also recieving the wrong facts from other environmentailists that have been brainwashed to brainwash other environmentalists.

"Malaria never dissapeared only controlled. But the spraying became less and less effective."

Present the facts that spraying DDT became less and less effective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/note2000-15.html

"I am talking about the standard of living for the people in those countries in which the govenrnment cannot support them."





"lol
Better do some research, there was never a malaria problem in North America."

I never said there was a Malaria problem here in North America, that was a question to you. You answered my sarcasm which was directed to opposing your thought tha Malaria can be controlled here in the US, but can't be controlled in other countries? Malaria is relatively unheard of here in America if you ask the average joe. That is not the case in 3rd world countries. They control it here, therefore it does not exist.

"Are you just now learning all of these things? I thought you were an electrical engineer? AZT is in fact a toxic drug, however you seem to have been brain washed again. And understanding of the Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome leads to the realization that it is not AIDS which kills you but the oppurtunistic diseases which take advantage of the ravaged immune system AIDS causes. AZT has many severe side effects, but the one effect it does have is slow down AIDS and its destruction of the immune system. Remember no immune system and the simplest thing can kill you. Either way you feel bad but withought AZT, the annual flu spells death."

What does this have to do with computers? Absolutely nothing. I know AZT is a toxic drug, thats what I meant. Explain then why some people live till they're 80 years old with HIV without getting AIDs. Why do people exposed to long-term OTC prescription drugs usually die faster than someone who is treated by natural means or someone who doesn't take any drugs at all?



If AZT were banned would you be asking that it be used in third world countries because it's cheap and effective?

Is AZT cheap and effective, or is it expensive? Think about that
Malaria is quite frankly a bigger problem than AIDs because more people have died from malaria than AIDs. This is why people here in America, with combination of AZT and other harmful drugs die quicker.

[bluesman]

Nuclear agency to spend $520 million on cleaning up old sites

Fri Jun 02, 10:26 AM EST

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government says it will spend $520 million over five years to deal with radioactive waste at nuclear facilities managed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

The corporation says some buildings dating to the 1940s will be dismantled and new facilities built to process and store radioactive wastes.

The plan does not deal with spent fuel from Candu reactors, which is managed by a different agency.

AECL's facilities include the Nuclear Laboratories at Chalk River, Ont., the Whiteshell Laboratories at Pinawa, Man., and three prototype reactors in Quebec and Ontario.

Some of the waste was generated before the formation of AECL and other material comes from universities, medical facilities and industry.

It is estimated that AECL's bill for decommissioning old facilities and handling radioactive wastes over the next 70 years will total $2.7 billion.

This was in Yahoo.ca news . We all see how Government estimates tend to ballon when the actual cost become know. This doesn't included costs for Candu wastes either.

What we are going to do with these wastes has never been answer.
The question is being ignored by supporters of Nuclear energy.
What does that tell you?
Out of sight , Out of Mind?

The true clean energy is what as Christians we should try and support.
Wind and Solar Power are the main two. If you think this can't be done, it is starting to happen in Ontario and other places. Wind power is starting to grow. I think solar power is the way to go in most cases in Africa. At least in the long run. The cost is prohibitive though.

Michael
Thomas

[godslanguage]

"What we are going to do with these wastes has never been answer.
The question is being ignored by supporters of Nuclear energy.
What does that tell you?
Out of sight , Out of Mind?"

That does'nt really tell me anything. Nuclear energy has too much upsides than downsides. Everything has its upsides and downlsides. Solar power is currently too weak and wind power needs good location, even so it is still weak. This also tells me that you may be getting your information from the wrong sources:

This one makes me laugh: http://www.nirs.org/ its funny because they take Chernobyl as they're primary arguement for why nuclear power is a bad thing. Everything along the way gets improved, technology right now is much better than it was in chernobyl.

This link tells us about nuclear energy and what is being done with the nuclear waste: http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/
http://www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm


"The true clean energy is what as Christians we should try and support.
Wind and Solar Power are the main two. If you think this can't be done, it is starting to happen in Ontario and other places. Wind power is starting to grow. I think solar power is the way to go in most cases in Africa. At least in the long run. The cost is prohibitive though. "

Yes, solar and wind power are very good energy sources, but the fact is they just don't cut it. 1 billion people will die before solar or wind power is impelemented in third world countries. As Christians, we should support Wind and solar power but at the same time realize that time is against this idea.
So sure, keep thinking about the future, how far the future we should look should be the number one concern and priority.

[Felgar]

Wind is not a great option because only a relatively small portion of the power grid can come from wind power. That's because when it's hot and calm, we all still need and use power. Total capacity is the big problem, and wind doesn't really help with that, because it's not constant. There are some countries in Europe who are almost past that threshold, and their power grid is pretty unstable.

I would prefer to see a lot more hydro plants. Of course they cause massive flood plains, but it will only be more and more difficult to put them in as rural areas become ever more crowded.

[bizzt]

Wind is not a great option because only a relatively small portion of the power grid can come from wind power. That's because when it's hot and calm, we all still need and use power. Total capacity is the big problem, and wind doesn't really help with that, because it's not constant. There are some countries in Europe who are almost past that threshold, and their power grid is pretty unstable.

I would prefer to see a lot more hydro plants. Of course they cause massive flood plains, but it will only be more and more difficult to put them in as rural areas become ever more crowded.

Very true Wind is not a Great Option however it does help the Cause

In the End a Combination of Water, Sun, and Wind. Are we can Harvest Humans and create electricity that way